March 5, 2008: President's Page
THE ALUMNI WEEKLY PROVIDES THESE PAGES TO THE PRESIDENT

Joyce Rechtschaffen
’75, head of Princeton’s Office of Government Affairs
in Washington, D.C (stone photography)

Princeton’s
Voice in Washington

Decisions made in Washington, D.C., can significantly influence
our capacity to carry out our educational mission. That is why we are
fortunate to have a seasoned representative in our nation’s capital
in the person of Joyce Rechtschaffen ’75, who has headed Princeton’s
Office of Government Affairs since 2006 after a distinguished career on
Capitol Hill. I have invited Joyce to reflect on her work and the impact
of federal policies on our University.—S.M.T.

As director of Princeton’s Office of Government Affairs in Washington,
D. C., I have the privilege of serving as the University’s advocate
and ambassador on Capitol Hill and with the federal agencies. Our three-person
office works closely with members of Congress and their staffs, representatives
of the Administration, Princeton alumni, and colleagues at higher education
associations and other universities.

Princeton has had an office in Washington for more than 25 years, and
strong advocacy on federal issues is important because many things happen
in Washington that affect the University. For more than 60 years, the
federal government has committed significant public funds to support basic
scientific research and graduate education at universities, recognizing
that this is essential to “insure our health, prosperity, and security
as a nation in the modern world.” With research in science and engineering
becoming ever more sophisticated and thus ever more expensive, universities
depend on the government to help meet these significant costs.

Part of our advocacy involves bringing faculty to Washington to give
lawmakers a first-hand view of the high quality research that federal
funds support at Princeton—in fields ranging from fusion energy
to neuroscience. Recently, legislators were extremely interested to learn
about the groundbreaking work (funded by the National Science Foundation)
of engineering professor Claire Gmachl on sensors that have a unique ability
to detect minute amounts of chemicals in our environment. This research
may transform the way doctors care for patients, local agencies monitor
air quality, governments guard against attack, and scientists understand
the evolution of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

We are pleased that over recent years both the Administration and the
Congress have recognized the need for a renewed commitment to the physical
sciences, building on a highly influential report from a committee chaired
by Norman Augustine ’57 *59. Yet, despite bipartisan consensus on
this issue, this year’s funding levels for science were disappointing,
and Congress imposed restrictions at one federal agency on the reimbursement
permitted for some costs that universities incur in conducting federally-
supported research.

While only about three percent of Princeton’s $81 million undergraduate
scholarship budget comes from federal sources, the University has always
encouraged the government to help low-income students attend college.
We are pleased that this Congress increased the maximum Pell Grant, even
though last-minute budget cuts reduced the amount of the increase.

Government policies have an impact on universities in ways that go well
beyond funding. Universities are subject to a large and growing number
of federal regulations, and some of our work involves trying to shape
these regulations in sensible ways. The government provides incentives
for charitable giving, and its immigration laws and policies can have
a major impact on our ability to attract students and scholars from around
the world and to expand the University’s international reach.

Recently we have been deeply concerned about two efforts at the federal
level that could fundamentally threaten certain aspects of Princeton’s
mission. For the first time in American history, the Department of Education
sought last year to impose external measures of student learning—in
other words, standardized testing—on colleges and universities.
Although Princeton assesses student learning and provides feedback to
students all the time, we strongly believe that federally mandated standardized
tests would damage the institutional diversity that has always been a
hallmark of American higher education and would be fundamentally at odds
with the kind of critical thinking, creativity, and analytical reasoning
that forms the core of a first-rate liberal arts education.

Second, some members of Congress have expressed an interest in imposing
federal regulations on university endowments, especially large endowments
like Princeton’s. Proposals have ranged from taxing them, to requiring
specific pay-out rates, to requiring certain kinds of expenditures (for
example, on financial aid). To the extent that these efforts are driven
by concern about the high cost of tuition, we have made certain that members
and staff are aware of Princeton’s groundbreaking financial aid
program for both low- and middle-income families. As we pointed out in
recent testimony, more than 44 percent of Princeton’s operating
budget this year is funded by the endowment, including more than 80 percent
of its scholarship budget. We also pointed out that tuition increases
do not affect any students on financial aid.

We also have explained that universities are very different in form
and function from private foundations that are subject to payout requirements,
and that Princeton takes very seriously its obligations to manage its
endowment in a manner that achieves a sustainable balance between providing
as much support as possible for the current generation while also building
capacity to meet future needs.

These are challenging issues, but I am extremely lucky and proud to
have the job of telling the Washington community about the wonderful work
of the Princeton community and of explaining to the Princeton community
the (sometimes!) wonderful world of Washington.